Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

Thanks, Clyde. I read this response in the user comments and it struck a chord with me:

Holly Green:

R Kelly was able to prey on multiple young black women because no one would stop him, because $$$. Cut off the $$$, cut off the influence, cut off the power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should be done with the Allen discussion.  Ultimately it's a family tragedy played out on an international stage, and none of us will ever know more than we do right now.  Which while disturbing and squicky enough for me, personally, to not bother using my limited free time to engage with his work, there's plenty of unknown for other people to have their own legitimate view on it.

 

Let's talk about something positive.  This is cool.  There's a growing effort to recruit more female Wikipedia editors, and large international "edit-a-thons" that seek to fill in the gaps in history and art on Wikipedia where women have been left out (sometimes intentionally, sometimes through ignorance). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually kind of fucking terrifying to think of how prolific this is within the entertainment industry. Bill Cosby, Kevin Clash, R Kelly, Woody Allen, and countless others all with multiple allegations of abuse or molestation. And even after these allegations surface they still receive awards and accolades from the public and their colleagues. I shudder to think of how many more sexual predators there are within the entertainment industry that haven't been publicly outed.

 

If an artist, director, or musician I liked turned out to be a child molestor tomorrow, their shit would be in the trash because it would be forever tainted with the knowledge of what kind of person was actually behind this. And if they were truly putting their heart and soul in to the art, then you would most likely pick up the pedo vibes in the work. I don't think this has instantly happened ever anyway, usually a reveal of one's true character is preceded by rumors and raised eyebrows on creative decisions.

 

I want to agree with this but it isn't always so straightforward to me. I mean, it's one thing to swear off any work of art or entertainment that is created by a known sexual predator but what about all of the art that we enjoy and sing praises of that is made by sexual predators that haven't been publicly outed? Sure, we can legitimately claim ignorance in this case but it must still hurt the victims immensely to see their abusers being adored by the public.

 

I don't like the idea that I need to re-train my brain to despise something that I previously found pleasing every time something like this comes to light, especially considering that I am still inevitably enjoying something made by other, equally horrible human beings. But I don't know, I can see the argument that I have a moral obligation to do whatever I can to not support these people. This issue is fucking complicated and I wish we didn't live in a world where anyone with enough money could get away with this kind of stuff. It would be nice to see all of these people serve prison sentences like anyone else would, lose all rights to their creative works, and be shunned by society for the rest of their existence.

 

Also, sorry Bjorn. Just wanted to get that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's the thing, in these types of cases I don't really have to retrain my brain, the betrayel is already there. But I've sworn off some creators I like just for things like political views or their attitude. None of them have become a sexual predator, so I don't know.

 

I also think it's up to the fan to decide if the allegations in the case of sexual transgressions are true or not if they are not found guilty in the court of law.

 

I don't know, I don't mean to be so strict about it. I'm a big fan of Charlie Chaplin but he was married two different women at 16, which many find appalling. I think it's somewhat questionable but considering the times and that this is not pedophilic behavior (some people don't get that that is relegated to preadolescence), I am not bothered by it. He never really married anyone his age, even his fourth wife that he married when she was 18 and stayed with her long term until his death. If this stuff ruins Chaplin for anyone, I certainly wouldn't blame them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now I have a sincere question. Are you more forgiving of Charlie Chaplin's actions because you appreciate his work? That's one of my concerns about this form of attribution and exclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, I'm not generally bothered by people dating young or half their age. If that's what they want to do, it's fine. but I think 16 is about the cut off. It's even less bothersome considering how young people used to marry a century ago and the average lifespan was much less. Personally I wouldn't since it just seems like a barrel of trouble waiting to happen, plus any long term viability is pretty much zero.

 

Also to give another aspect of this, there's a lot of animators I like who made some blackface cartoons (although what animator or comic artist didn't in the 00s, 10s, 20s, 30s and 40s?) but I still appreciate their work. I don't think it was with racist intentions the way we see it these days even though it was wrong, no doubt. Times have changed and I don't feel it would be fair to hold them to the standards of today as the historical context is important. Also none of the ones I enjoy were out to do only blackface cartoons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to agree with this but it isn't always so straightforward to me. I mean, it's one thing to swear off any work of art or entertainment that is created by a known sexual predator but what about all of the art that we enjoy and sing praises of that is made by sexual predators that haven't been publicly outed? Sure, we can legitimately claim ignorance in this case but it must still hurt the victims immensely to see their abusers being adored by the public.

 

I don't like the idea that I need to re-train my brain to despise something that I previously found pleasing every time something like this comes to light, especially considering that I am still inevitably enjoying something made by other, equally horrible human beings. But I don't know, I can see the argument that I have a moral obligation to do whatever I can to not support these people. This issue is fucking complicated and I wish we didn't live in a world where anyone with enough money could get away with this kind of stuff. It would be nice to see all of these people serve prison sentences like anyone else would, lose all rights to their creative works, and be shunned by society for the rest of their existence.

 

The way someone I like put it is that you don't want your enjoyment of an artist's work be construed as support for the artist, which is doubly hard in a capitalist society where art is sold as a product to consumers for financial gain. People have no problem boycotting Coca-Cola for South American death camps, but it seems like we expect artists not to be terrible in the same way that corporations are terrible, which explains why so many people have rewritten their own personal cultural histories in order to forget that Cosby probably assaulted a ton of women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, there are a few questions I have to throw out there for those of you who would rather stay away from creative works, if the creator's a dipshit.

Would that attitude change if the creation in question was a cure for AIDS for example? If so, why? Even if a work of art would be seen merely as a reflection of its creator, wouldn't it be valuable for society as a whole to have that accessible especially because the creator shows problematic traits and something about that might be learned from his work? Would you welcome the removal of his work from public access, if it was ordered by a governing body and not an isolated case? Is there a difference between a convicted pedophile and one that never acted upon his disposition, thus never broke a law and harmed other people, but displays the same tendencies in his creative work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that attitude change if the creation in question was a cure for AIDS for example? If so, why?

 

I almost asked that same question.  The difference between something like medicine or science and a creative field like art is that art is purely subjective.  There is a real, measurable value to something like curing a disease.  While there may be a general consensus that a piece of art is good and has value, I don't think you can categorically state that the world would be worse off without it.  Creative works are by their nature at least somewhat reflective of the creator, but if someone becomes publicly known for being a horrible person, it doesn't mean the cure will suddenly stop working for the people who don't like him or work better for the people who do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creative works are by their nature at least somewhat reflective of the creator, but if someone becomes publicly known for being a horrible person, it doesn't mean the cure will suddenly stop working for the people who don't like him or work better for the people who do.

Oh definitely, but I think that a work of art can give enjoyment to other people's lives or maybe even inspire them to pursue something with more tangible benefits like said cure, independent of that art's creator. Of course stating something like that is a bit like constructing a house of cards in that it is so, I don't know, intangible and something I could just easilly be pulling out of my ass, but as you said, art's purely subjective and it's hard to know what effect it actually has, since that's not something you can accurately measure.

The thing about that, though, is, as you said, I can't state that the world would be worse off without a specific piece of art, but I think widening that to art as a whole might be a different matter. Might be, I don't know, it's more of a gut feeling that a world without art would be a miserable place. But if that actually were the case and the value of art is subjective, then it becomes hard to see how we could exclude any specific piece of art from that in the first place.

Of course, since I feel like I might be running into something here, as a disclaimer that's only applicable to the notion of a general ban on that sort of art. If someone's personal choice is not to consume it anymore because his knowledge of its creator diminishes or even eradicates his enjoyment of the art itself - I personally feel that's unfortunate, but it is what it is and I don't mean my wall of questions to imply something along the lines of "you are wrong, watch this man's movies!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, there are a few questions I have to throw out there for those of you who would rather stay away from creative works, if the creator's a dipshit.

Would that attitude change if the creation in question was a cure for AIDS for example? If so, why? Even if a work of art would be seen merely as a reflection of its creator, wouldn't it be valuable for society as a whole to have that accessible especially because the creator shows problematic traits and something about that might be learned from his work? Would you welcome the removal of his work from public access, if it was ordered by a governing body and not an isolated case? Is there a difference between a convicted pedophile and one that never acted upon his disposition, thus never broke a law and harmed other people, but displays the same tendencies in his creative work?

An AIDs cure is not a creative work, it's that same as invention. That kind of stuff is not a good analogy because once again, it's a means to an end. Once they have the cure for AIDs, the second they become a dipshit, it really doesn't matter because it's everyone's cure. It's not like he's going to have a series of cures that he hangs on a wall and that you can buy in a box set.

 

It takes creativity to think of solutions more often than not but it is not something that exactly identifies the creator. Also inventions are not usually just the creation of one insane genius, but instead a collective competition between humans towards our latest toolset as a species evolving. A lot of creations and advances in technology are fueled by a need for war and not just one person actively trying to kill with better weapons.

 

You guys can say it's subjective, but I don't see how they can be the same without ignoring key differences to say so. I don't see how it's congruous to swear off the telephone if Arthur Graham Bell turned out to be a child molester. First, he doesn't make the telephone with his bare hands and he is dead and the invention is everyone's at this point. Second, multiple people were trying to achieve an ability to talk long distance with lines anyway at that point in time, so it would have invented at some point if not him (plus I see there is debate on who actually invented the phone). I mean we don't know the inventor of a can on a string.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely not the same and I wouldn't even claim it to be a good analogy. I think it definitely isn't. That wasn't the reason for me bringing it up, though. I have to admit the notion of ignoring the creative work is very baffling to me, but I don't intend to challenge it, rather to understand it. I doubt that I am going to agree in the end, so it is probably a bit selfish to even bring it up, it's just that I think it's important and rewarding to have discurses like this that end in "agree to disagree" instead of outright dismissal.

Does feel a bit like steering the thread offtopic, though, apologies for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's what the topic is here for, so it's good to discuss. No apology needed I think.

 


Does feel a bit like steering the thread offtopic, though, apologies for that.

I agree on that. Topics like this wouldn't be any good for anyone in terms of the historical merit of an individual if everyone felt the same and in all cases of the nature even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of an issue I've sometimes faced helping to run a hackspace, to which we've never found a perfect solution. Occasionally, someone has committed some bullshit, and while it's being discussed someone says "But he's done a lot for the space". People really dislike the internal paradox and conflicting impressions that creates about someone, but the person in question should always answer for that bullshit.

 

Simultaneously on and off topic thing:

 

I was sort of pleased to hear the outcome of one incident where a chauvinist guy had been patronising to a couple of women there. Not long after that, he was trying to work out how to turn a projector off, and one of them who knew how tried to show him. He interrupted her with "I'm sorry, I have a hard time listening to - " at which point she interrupted in kind with "If your next word is women you can just leave". I don't think he ever came back.

 

I hadn't heard of the Bill Cosby thing before. That's so heinously fucked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wavered on whether to post this, but I'm a little unnerved at how everyone seems to just be taking the allegations as undeniable fact:

 

He is a monster and deserves jail, and if he happens to innocent (which I doubt)
 
You don't make up a story like that in a male dominated industry, that exists within a patriarchy
 
First marriage was to a 16 year old (to be fair, he was 19 and it was 1956).
 
a recognized master of emotional manipulation through his films
 
He's a child molester to all but the willfully obtuse
 
He did horrible things, for that he deserves prison.

 

I'm not saying I think he's innocent, but this general "guilty before proven innocent" vibe with sprinklings of specious logic from this community took me aback a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wavered on whether to post this, but I'm a little unnerved at how everyone seems to just be taking the allegations as undeniable fact:

I'm not saying I think he's innocent, but this general "guilty before proven innocent" vibe with sprinklings of specious logic from this community took me aback a little.

The U.S. justice-system supposedly requires a lack of reasonable doubt for a conviction. In child-molestation cases, there is rarely enough hard evidence for a conviction because it can often just be the word of the victim against the word of the suspect.

We don't necessarily have that requirement because we aren't deciding whether or not the suspect will go to prison for many years. We are just trying to figure out which movie to recommend to a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand that. I'm just saying that there's a difference between "I wouldn't recommend a Woody Allen movie to a friend because of long-standing sexual abuse allegations that I believe to be true" and "I wouldn't recommend a Woody Allen movie to a friend because of sexual abuse that he definitely committed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wavered on whether to post this, but I'm a little unnerved at how everyone seems to just be taking the allegations as undeniable fact:

 

 

I'm not saying I think he's innocent, but this general "guilty before proven innocent" vibe with sprinklings of specious logic from this community took me aback a little.

 

I'm not quite sure why my comment about him being a master manipulator of emotions got put on there.  I mean, that's one of the things a great filmmaker and story teller is.  I wasn't using that as an insult, but to point out the power imbalance of when he began dating his girlfriend's teenage daughter. 

 

I admit to being uncomfortable judging him based purely on a single allegation.  But I am also uncomfortable with the relationship choices he's made, to the point that his marriage to Soon-Yi had already somewhat turned me off his work and makes me question his ability to make ethical, or healthy, decisions.  Fair or not, he gets less benefit of the doubt because of that.

 

Edited to add:

 

I know I've seen people who've worked Allen describe him in master manipulator terms.  Here's one quote from Josh Brolin:

 

Q. What challenges did you face making Tall Dark Stranger?

A. Usually when you block a scene you go back to your trailer by yourself, you isolate, you work on your dialogue. We had none of that with Woody. I was told we had trailers that are comfortable and nice. Did we ever see them? No. On day we were in a fifth-floor walk-up. We were in this tiny room, our holding pen. Everybody’s freaking out. Everyone wants to please Woody. I’m pacing and smoking. We show up on the set, and Woody says, “Okay, let’s block this.” We’re constantly moving. In a play it would take a week figuring out how this is going to work. We have 15 minutes. And it’s all done in one shot, so you can’t screw up the take. There’s no escape. You’ve got to be really on your game. Everybody’s talking to themselves, everybody’s pacing. You put yourself in this horrible position and you’re not being paid anything, to please this guy. He’s set himself up in such a way that all you want to do is please the master. It’s the greatest manipulation of anybody I’ve ever come across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, sorry, you weren't directly connecting that to the sexual abuse allegations. It is still tied in to a list of other accusations and behaviour characteristic of a serial paedophile, though, which seems to imply an indirect line of proof.

 

Aside from that, I do think that the opinions that he makes affecting films and that he uses actors' regard for him to get set-ups done quicker is rather tenuous proof that he's a master manipulator of emotions in all areas of his life.

Edited by Ben X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the allegations cannot - and unfortunately, most likely will not - be confirmed as fact, but as a fan I can add up what has been revealed thus far and draw a conclusion based on them.

 

The conversation necessarily had to hinge on the allegations being true in order to discuss the whole boycotting issue. But we can talk about the likelihood (rather good) that the same man who has a history of questionable sexual behavior did molest his daughter (who made the same accusation immediately after the incident that she is making now as an adult).

 

Also if you never read the 90s Vanity Fair article discussing it from a 3rd person perspective, it's a worthy and harrowing read: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211 especially in shedding light on how truly fucked up and unjustifiable Allen's relationship with his step-daughter Soon-Yi was as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That shit doesn't even make me angry, it's just so out there. I mean, on an intellectual level I know such people exist, but somehow it still feels unreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to continue the previous discussion (since I'm the one who called for us to move on), but I saw an article today that kind of stopped me in my tracks after thinking about the Allen conversation on here.  I thought it only fair to point out my own ambivalence about the topic in general and possible hypocrisy. 

 

This week would be William S. Burroughs' 100th birthday, and he spent the last couple of decades of his life in Lawrence, Kan., the town I've lived most of my adult life in or around.  I was here for a couple of years before he died, though I never encountered him.  Between the known reality (killing his wife and decades long drug abuse) and the rumor mill (mostly around pederasty, which was a theme explored in his writing), you cannot fault someone for completely writing off the man and his work.  And yet I've always felt a bit of pride that my adopted home town is where he chose to spend his golden years.  That he brought his particular brand of crazy to our patch of weird in Kansas, and only helped further shape the storied history of this place. 

 

Maybe I just don't like Woody Allen and appreciate the chance to have some bullshit to backup that feeling, something to validate my distaste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×